Battle for the Beehive(A New Zealand Election Thread)

[Green October Z]

The National Party has my blessing

[Stellonia]

Why is NZ First in a coalition with Labour and Green rather than with National?

[Stellonia]

On the issue of MMP, 5% is too high a threshold. Do parties have the option of consolidating in order to exceed the threshold like they do in Israel?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

On the issue of MMP, 5% is too high a threshold. Do parties have the option of consolidating in order to exceed the threshold like they do in Israel?

I don't know, but I don't see much point. There's no assurance they will vote in unison once elected. Well unless parties are legally required to vote as a bloc ... that would be a bit crazy.

Why have a chimera when you could just lower the threshold and have two tiny parties?

[Costa Fierro]

There's a few cases where that isn't true. The Search and Surveillance Act 2012 gives police the power to enter and/or search property without a warrant or permission for a lot of reasons - to make an arrest (§7), to avoid loss of a fleeing offender or evidence (§8), to prevent injury to any person (§14), to prevent serious damage to or loss of property (§14), to seize illegal arms (§18), to seize controlled drugs or precursor substances (§20), or in cases of espionage (§25). All use of warrantless entry powers under the Act remain under the oversight of the Commissioner or a Police employee designated to receive reports of that kind by the Commissioner as soon as practical (§169), the same as for entry under the Public Health Response Bill.

I don't imagine there are many places a criminal could enter a house to escape arrest. That seems a bit easy on the crim.

It's more so that they can enter a premises to make an arrest if they are in pursuit of an offender, especially if it is a family or associates house that could obfuscate and obstruct police in their pursuit of the offender.

On the issue of MMP, 5% is too high a threshold. Do parties have the option of consolidating in order to exceed the threshold like they do in Israel?

If it's merging together, not really. I don't think there's anything as such because a lot of the parties are somewhat disparate and appeal to different elements of the voting public, and so consolidation wouldn't really work on the context of New Zealand politics.

The closest we got was the Internet-Mana Party in the lead up to 2014, when Kim Dotcom's Internet Party merged with the Mana Party, who already had a seat in Parliament and an MP (Hone Harawira). It would have been successful had the voters in the Maori electorate of Te Tai Tokerau decided they'd had enough of him and voted in favour of their current MP Kelvin Davis.

[Drongonia]

Why is NZ First in a coalition with Labour and Green rather than with National?

To put it simply, the Labour-Green bloc were willing to give the man who runs NZ First (Winston Peters) the role of Deputy Prime Minister. National were not.

[Stellonia]

Why is NZ First in a coalition with Labour and Green rather than with National?

To put it simply, the Labour-Green bloc were willing to give the man who runs NZ First (Winston Peters) the role of Deputy Prime Minister. National were not.

What is Peters' reputation?

[Shrillland]

To put it simply, the Labour-Green bloc were willing to give the man who runs NZ First (Winston Peters) the role of Deputy Prime Minister. National were not.

What is Peters' reputation?

Something of a nationalist and a populist, though he's fairly mild compared to the likes of Trump or Hanson. He's also been a stumbling block thanks to NZ First's social conservatism, hence the two plebiscites being held on top of the election(they were his demand).

[Stellonia]

What is Peters' reputation?

Something of a nationalist and a populist, though he's fairly mild compared to the likes of Trump or Hanson.

Is he subject to accusations of racism?

[Drongonia]

To put it simply, the Labour-Green bloc were willing to give the man who runs NZ First (Winston Peters) the role of Deputy Prime Minister. National were not.

What is Peters' reputation?

He's been in politics since 1978, so he's a veteran alright. He formed his party in 1993 after splitting from National after internal disagreements.

He does get things done, but his principle is questionable. He's formed governments with both sides of the left-right spectrum and has had more than his fair share of scandals over his political career.

[Drongonia]

Is he subject to accusations of racism?

Yes, he has been in the past, but the fact that he's a mixed race (half Maori [indigenous] and half white) is something he uses to partly shield himself from the accusations.

He's said things like how foreigners will end up with control over us, our largest city feels more like China than New Zealand, and some other statements over the years.

[Cetacea]

Why is NZ First in a coalition with Labour and Green rather than with National?

Because National were arrogant knobends who insulted The NZF leader prior to the last election and thus killed any chance of forming a agreement with them. Winstons a consummate politician, who knows how to get leverage and to pick a good horse

[Stellonia]

Why is NZ First in a coalition with Labour and Green rather than with National?

Because National were arrogant knobends who insulted The NZF leader prior to the last election and thus killed any chance of forming a agreement with them.

That sounds like a stupid move.

Winstons a consummate politician, who knows how to get leverage and to pick a good horse

Is he a kingmaker? (EDIT: He made the Wikipedia page for "Kingmaker," so I assume so.)

[Costa Fierro]

What is Peters' reputation?

He's been in politics since 1978, so he's a veteran alright. He formed his party in 1993 after splitting from National after internal disagreements.

He does get things done, but his principle is questionable. He's formed governments with both sides of the left-right spectrum and has had more than his fair share of scandals over his political career.

His principles are "what can I benefit from the most", which is why he's attracted such stellar politicians as Shane Jones to his party.

Case in point, that mysterious fund where all those donations from corporate businessmen was funnelled into that's still the subject of pending legal action and was investigated by the Serious Fraud Office.

Why is NZ First in a coalition with Labour and Green rather than with National?

To add to Drogonia's initial post, NZF entered a coalition with National based on the fact that Labour were willing to give him more than National will, but also because National campaigned harder against NZF than other potential Labour partners, and they successfully booted Peters out of his electorate in Northland.

[Costa Fierro]

That sounds like a stupid move.

It does, but bear in mind that polling up until Ardern became leader of the Labour party was showing National to confidently win a fourth term in government, which would have been unheard of in the MMP era. Even at the election they still acquired the largest share of the vote.

What undid National wasn't their campaign against NZF, it was the loss of two of their three coalition partners.

Is he a kingmaker?

Was. Might still be, but polling puts NZF support all over the place.

[Drongonia]

Because National were arrogant knobends who insulted The NZF leader prior to the last election and thus killed any chance of forming a agreement with them. Winstons a consummate politician, who knows how to get leverage and to pick a good horse

Rubbish! Peters filed court proceedings against multiple National MPs because he thought they'd leaked his confidential benefit details (even though there was no evidence). Considering the fact that he did this, he's lucky National even gave him the time of day.

Oh, also National had campaigned hard as Costa Fierro said. They were hoping they'd be able to finally snub him and get NZF out in 2017. This would have benefited the Labour-Green bloc too but they were much more reserved, realising that it could either work for National or backfire (as it did).

Was. Might still be, but polling puts NZF support all over the place.

You can never count Winston out.

[Costa Fierro]

Because National were arrogant knobends who insulted The NZF leader prior to the last election and thus killed any chance of forming a agreement with them. Winstons a consummate politician, who knows how to get leverage and to pick a good horse

Rubbish! Peters filed court proceedings against multiple National MPs because he thought they'd leaked his confidential benefit details (even though there was no evidence). Considering the fact that he did this, he's lucky National even gave him the time of day.

They had to once they realised that their ability to get back in faded away after both United Future and the Maori Party failed to make it back into Parliament.

[Drongonia]

They had to once they realised that their ability to get back in faded away after both United Future and the Maori Party failed to make it back into Parliament.

True, I was going to say they could have been principled and not dealt with him but this is the National party we're dealing with. Not exactly principled (some exclusions apply).

[Costa Fierro]

You can never count Winston out.

Exactly. I hope that they don't make it back in because dodgy slush funds (both secret and official) as well as engaging in nepotism (the Semenoff investigation) isn't something that should be rewarded in New Zealand politics.

True, I was going to say they could have been principled and not dealt with him but this is the National party we're dealing with. Not exactly principled (some exclusions apply).

It's also Winston. If they had offered him a better deal, he would have gone with National and we'd still have Prime Minister Bill English.

Lord knows how he'd have dealt with all the crap thrown our way over the last year and a bit.

[Rune help]

The Green Party is the best

[Drongonia]

It's also Winston. If they had offered him a better deal, he would have gone with National and we'd still have Prime Minister Bill English.

Lord knows how he'd have dealt with all the crap thrown our way over the last year and a bit.

I'm sure we would be in near enough to the same position as now. Jacinda Ardern, while a good communicator, is only the sum of the team of experts/advisors behind her (as is any leader). Bill English, or God forbid even Simon Bridges, would likely have the exact same team running things and making decisions behind the scenes. I stan Bill English anyway but that doesn't change my opinion.

[Cetacea]

Because National were arrogant knobends who insulted The NZF leader prior to the last election and thus killed any chance of forming a agreement with them. Winstons a consummate politician, who knows how to get leverage and to pick a good horse

Rubbish! Peters filed court proceedings against multiple National MPs because he thought they'd leaked his confidential benefit details (even though there was no evidence). Considering the fact that he did this, he's lucky National even gave him the time of day.

Oh, also National had campaigned hard as Costa Fierro said. They were hoping they'd be able to finally snub him and get NZF out in 2017. This would have benefited the Labour-Green bloc too but they were much more reserved, realising that it could either work for National or backfire (as it did).

You forget Winston propped up National before even though he and Bolger hated each other and were constantly sniping at each other. After 40 years Winstons carrying on being himself was just run of the mill. - It was Key English and Brownlee that killed their chance with NZF

[Flanderlion]

As a Kiwi kinda unsure who I'll vote for. Bridges/Nats screwed up with our COVID response, all they needed to do was let Labour have the boost for the response, and support them mostly with it, then fight the election afterwards. Instead they were opposing most of NZs views, and consequently, their vote share collapsed. When it comes closer to election, and hopefully with a bit more of a clean out of some of the dodgier members of the Nats (the Chinese spy - the nat one, but the labour one too should go, and Collins specifically, might be great people/effective politicians but too many red flags with those two), they'll come closer, but I think they've screwed their election chances this year.

All of the parties have had decent policies and dumb ones, and all have members that are kinda dodgy, some more than others. Was disappointed in a lot of Labour's infra promises failing to materialise while cancelling the Nat's ones, but JA has done good in the various crisis's we've had over the term (no thanks to a selection of incompetent ministers she should've sacked).

[Costa Fierro]

I'm sure we would be in near enough to the same position as now. Jacinda Ardern, while a good communicator, is only the sum of the team of experts/advisors behind her (as is any leader). Bill English, or God forbid even Simon Bridges, would likely have the exact same team running things and making decisions behind the scenes. I stan Bill English anyway but that doesn't change my opinion.

If anything Bill would have probably been somewhat better than Bridges would have been, he's had more experience and probably realises the value of listening to the experts when it comes to significant responses.

Was disappointed in a lot of Labour's infra promises failing to materialise while cancelling the Nat's ones, but JA has done good in the various crisis's we've had over the term (no thanks to a selection of incompetent ministers she should've sacked).

Labour's old neoliberalist ideas about how to do infrastructure spending reared their head once she announced a whole bunch of spending on roads. I like that there's at least a billion being spent on the railways, but it doesn't represent nearly a tenth of what should be spent.

The Greens have a lot of good policies, including the suggestion of passenger rail. Problem is electrification and investment in the railway network isn't "economic" enough, especially given how much influence the trucking lobby has.

[Flanderlion]

I'm sure we would be in near enough to the same position as now. Jacinda Ardern, while a good communicator, is only the sum of the team of experts/advisors behind her (as is any leader). Bill English, or God forbid even Simon Bridges, would likely have the exact same team running things and making decisions behind the scenes. I stan Bill English anyway but that doesn't change my opinion.

If anything Bill would have probably been somewhat better than Bridges would have been, he's had more experience and probably realises the value of listening to the experts when it comes to significant responses.

Especially as he has a wife in the field.

Was disappointed in a lot of Labour's infra promises failing to materialise while cancelling the Nat's ones, but JA has done good in the various crisis's we've had over the term (no thanks to a selection of incompetent ministers she should've sacked).

Labour's old neoliberalist ideas about how to do infrastructure spending reared their head once she announced a whole bunch of spending on roads. I like that there's at least a billion being spent on the railways, but it doesn't represent nearly a tenth of what should be spent.

The Greens have a lot of good policies, including the suggestion of passenger rail. Problem is electrification and investment in the railway network isn't "economic" enough, especially given how much influence the trucking lobby has.

I'm someone who tries to be mode neutral, as in, I like more road/rail/whatever infra spending. So wasn't over the moon with the cancelled projects when they first came in, but was interested in LR etc. especially the NW one - both lines seem to have stopped entirely now though.

I quite liked the Greater Auckland proposal for Regional Rail, which both Labour/Greens picked up for the earlier election. As I wrote elsewhere about the Hamilton Auckland attempt.

The aim is for it to be price and time competitive with driving (including cost/time parking/maintenance and the like). Unlike a car, you can work on the train/have a couple of drinks with mates after work etc.

I don't know if this attempt will be successful or not, as it has to be done right to be sustainable, but I'm for the general idea of the commuter rail. Needs to be fast enough, cheap enough, frequent enough and the trial be long enough to give users confidence to switch to work out, and I'm not 100% if this iteration has it. If it fails, they'll try again in X years, and so on until it works out or the fundamentals change radically.

The Greens national passenger rail appeared to stop at Timaru, missing out the 2nd largest city in the South Island (Dunedin). Not to mention, Dunedin already has the rail infrastructure mostly in place. But yes, Greens do have some decent policies. The whole insulation/housing regulations was <3, and common sense. I personally can't see myself voting for them though, until their social policies take a backseat to their environmental ones.